The agonizingly overwrought debate over whether to change a few words in Canada’s national anthem has to be among the dumbest national dilemmas of our time.

On the one side, you have those who believe that changing the words “in all thy sons command” to the grammatically ticklish “in all of us command” is a worthy endeavour because we are a good and inclusive society (unless you’re offended by that “God” stuff in the anthem, but whatever), and that this token gesture — combined with a new banknote featuring a non-monarch woman — will have a profound effect on the way women and girls see themselves in our society.

On the other side, you have those who believe the words to our anthem are absolutely sacrosanct (despite being changed before, but whatever), and that this amendment must be vigorously resisted, lest one be forced to mumble over one sanitized phrase at the occasional hockey game or graduation ceremony. No, we certainly can’t let that happen: the integrity of our great nation is at stake.

We will persevere as a nation whether the change happens or not: we survived the elimination of the penny, the relocation of the Montreal Expos…

What few of the major players in this debate are keen to acknowledge is that we will persevere as a nation whether the change happens or not: we survived the elimination of the penny, the relocation of the Montreal Expos, and that dark period in time when the middles of toonies kept falling out. We will go on as a country either of “sons,” or “of us, ” with only the psychological scars of this unnecessarily prolonged discussion to show for our efforts.

In all likelihood, the change will happen: a majority of the House of Commons is in favour of Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger’s Bill C-210, which went through a heritage committee review this month. On Thursday, however, the Tories attempted to prolong this excruciating, futile discussion just a little bit longer, while giving credence to stereotypes they were trying to shed about Conservatives being crass and cripplingly opportunistic.

To proceed with the next round of debate Friday, Bélanger — whose health is rapidly deteriorating from ALS — would have had to be present. Thursday, the Liberals tried to move a motion that would have allowed Chief Government Whip Andrew Leslie to shepherd the bill, should Bélanger have been too ill to physically make it to the House. The motion required unanimous consent, but failed to a chorus of “nays” from the Conservative benches.

One would think the Tories would have learned last fall to avoid these sorts of crassly polarizing gambits, particularly on a matter on which they have virtually no prospect of success

The Conservatives were previously accused of trying to block the bill last month, when they ran out the clock during debate before second reading. The accusation in that case was bit spurious, however, since the time for debate was there and the Conservatives merely used it. The situation now is a bit different: the Tories aren’t simply making the most of parliamentary procedure that would be provided to them in the case of every private member’s bill, but transparently exploiting an opportunity to see the bill expire afforded only by virtue of the fact that its sponsor is literally dying.

Tory supporters insist it shouldn’t matter that Bélanger is terminally ill: we don’t rush through bills because of some sense of obligation to their sponsors. That’s true, but in this case, the fact that Bélanger is dying is absolutely relevant to what’s going on: if he were well, there would be no question as to whether he would appear in the House when needed. Debate would continue, his bill would pass third reading, then go on to the Senate. In a perverse way, the Tories nearly lucked out that the health of the bill’s sponsor is rapidly declining (Bélanger did in fact show up on Friday, and the bill moved onto the next stage); that they seized that opportunity shows exactly why so many people are turned off by the Conservative Party of Canada.

One would think the Tories would have learned last fall to avoid these sorts of crassly polarizing gambits, particularly on a matter on which they have virtually no prospect of success. If Bélanger’s bill dies, another private member’s bill will be introduced — or else, the government will table its own legislation on the anthem, while endlessly reminding Canadians of the Tories’ shameful past manoeuvres. Even if Canadians can forgive them their callousness, they shouldn’t for stretching out this thoroughly insufferable “national conversation” even longer.